Now Reading
According to the WA Supreme Court, EPA failed in its obligation to properly assess Woodside Scarborough’s project.

According to the WA Supreme Court, EPA failed in its obligation to properly assess Woodside Scarborough’s project.

CCWA Maggie Wood, Carmen Lawrence and lawyer Tim Macknay in front of Perth's Supreme Court

The WA Supreme Court was informed that Woodside’s $16.5B Scarborough gas project was not properly evaluated by the state’s environmental watchdog.

Today, the court began hearing a case against the gas giant by Conservation Council of WA. This case challenges approvals given by the Environmental Protection Authority.

Maggie Wood, executive director of CCWA, stated that the council didn’t believe the project was properly assessed outside court.

“Woodside’s Scarborough proposal is the most polluting and fossil fuel-dependent project in Australia right now,” she stated.

“All that we are asking for is for the Supreme Court to allow this project be assessed under the same environmental rules as any other project in Western Australia.”

CCWA Maggie Wood, Carmen Lawrence and lawyer Tim Macknay in front of Perth's Supreme Court
Maggie Wood, CCWA director, chair Carmen Lawrence and Tim Macknaywant to end the project.(ABC News: Supplement)

Woodside made the final investment decision in November to move forward with the $16.5 million project.

According to the CCWA, Scarborough would produce 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide over 25 years.

According to the council, approvals of the EPA could be modified to allow additional gas from third parties to be processed.

The councils stated that this was done at Woodside’s request without further environmental evaluation.

Henry Jackson SC, acting for the CCWA, told the court that the new proposal had a negative effect on the environment and needed to be evaluated by the EPA.

Henry Jackson wears a pin-striped suit standing outside court
Henry Jackson SC states that the EPA must consider the negative effects the project could have on the environment.(ABC News: David Weber)

Woodside thought there would be a small impact, Mr Jackson stated, and EPA Services agreed.

See Also
Tips on covering ARPA and infrastructure/environment

He stated to the court that the EPA chair needed to “engage in his intellectual process” and evaluate the proposed changes.

Justice Jeremy Allanson raised several points during Mr Jackson’s speech. He stated that the legislation did no say “he must” do so.

He also stated that they could always have a “storeof accumulated knowledge”.

Justice Allanson stated to the court that it was possible that these changes were not making a significant difference.

The hearing will be held for three days.

View Comments (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.